Currently browsing posts about: Uncategorized

All of this is enough to make me want to run out and eat some M&Ms.

You can’t make this stuff up.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

When I saw this tweet from Tom Philpott, I knew immediately what it was about.

I had seen Deena Shanker’s investigative report in Bloomberg News, not least because I’m quoted in it: Fake Meat Was Supposed to Save the World. It Became Just  Another Fad.

The article’s subtitle: “Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods wanted to upend the world’s $1 trillion meat industry. But plant-based meat is turning out to be a flop.”

And then I saw this ad in the January 22 New York Times.

Anonymous Reddit writers saying things like “I suspect it’s coming form [sic] a news outlet paid money to write an article by people who make money from meat sales.”

A badge of honor for Deena Shanker indeed.  Clearly, she hit a nerve.

Meat alternatives still have their fans and I’m not ready to write off fake meat just yet.   But this ad makes me much less sympathetic to this particular Cause.

Ironic addition, January 30: Impossible Foods to lay off 20% of its staff.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

I was interested to come across this paper: Conflict of Interests in the Scientific Production on Vitamin D and COVID-19: A Scoping Review.   Front Public Health. 2022 Jul 11;10:821740.   doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.821740. eCollection 2022.

Results and conclusions: 

• Studies were funded by companies in the diagnostics, pharmaceutical and food sectors.
• Conclusions favorable to vitamin D supplementation were more prevalent in papers where COI was identified (9/13, 69.2%) than among papers where COI was not found (4/16, 25.0%).
• Omissions of disclosure of COI, funding source, and sponsor functions were observed.
• The identification of possible corporate political activities in scientific papers about vitamin D published during the COVID-19 pandemic signals a need for greater transparency and guideline development on the prevention of COI in scientific production.

Comment:  Not many studies look at disclosure issues this closely.  This is a welcome addition to the genre.  It reminds me of this especially entertaining report: “COVID-19 and misinformation: how an infodemic fuelled the prominence of vitamin D.”  Papers on vitamin D and COVID-19, it seems, are not only influenced by corporate interests; they are also occasionally fraudulent, if viral.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

The Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI) published a report, Spotlight on Lobbying 2022 just in time for Christmas.  I am just getting to it.

ATNI has been commissioned to benchmark the world’s 25 largest F&B companies’ lobbying-related commitments, management systems, and disclosure against the Responsible Lobbying Framework (RLF). The RLF was developed to help organizations adopt corporate practices that ensure their lobbying activities are legitimate, transparent, consistent, and accountable, while providing the opportunity for other, more resource-constrained groups, to lobby in the public
interest.

Note that this report focuses on corporate promises and internal practices.  It does not evaluate what the companies are actually doing to influence nutrition policy.

The results?  No surprise, “current practice is far from the standard set in the RLF.”

Of course it is.  Why would companies want to stop lobbying when it is so effective in protecting their profits.

The report mentions the major issues:

• Taxes on unhealthy foods
• Marketing restrictions, particularly to children
• Mandatory front-of-package labels
• Food-based (rather than nutrient-based) dietary guidelines.

I hope its next lobbying report will document how these companies are fighting every one of these public health initiatives.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

I received an emailed announcement alerting me to today’s big event: It’s National Peanut Brittle Day, “a day dedicated to honoring one of our favorite uniquely American treats.”

Who knew?

The press release continues with some not-so-sweet news:  peanut brittle is yet another victim of inflation.

The chart shows the cost of the raw ingredients in peanut brittle has increased by nearly 18% — from just under $0.38 per pound in early 2021 to nearly $0.46 cents today.

Other cost increases: transportation, energy, labor add up to “a recipe for expensive candy!”

A strange press release, but an interesting commentary on what’s happening with prices.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

One of the great tragedies of the Trump Administration was its attempt to thoroughly destroy the Economic Research Service by moving it out of Washington DC to Kansas City, Kansas.

I wrote about this repeatedly a few years ago (see links at end)) as did—and does–AgriPulse.

USDA should have planned better for staff attrition when it moved the Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Kansas City,  in 2019, the Government Accountability Office says in a new report that notes the department “minimally involved employees, Congress, and other key stakeholders in relocating the agencies.”  The controversial moves during the Trump administration were vocally opposed by many employees and outside groups that said USDA had not adequately justified its decision.

The GAO has now documented exactly what critics predicted.

Coinciding with the loss of staff in fiscal years 2019 and 2020, ERS produced fewer key reports, and NIFA took longer to process grants…Two years after the relocation, the agencies’ workforce was composed mostly of new employees with less experience at ERS and NIFA than the prior workforce.

In addition, a decline in the number of employees in certain protected groups persisted. For example, the proportion of Black or African American staff at NIFA declined from 47 percent to 19 percent (see fig.).

The report says ERS has recovered.  I disagree.  As far as I can tell, ERS still produces basic reports on farming but is no longer producing the kind of hard-hitting critical analyses of food and farming issues that it used to.  I miss it.  A lot.

Some (not all) previous comments on the ERS move

• We now have a chance to repair the damage done to the Economic Research Service
• One more time: the Economic Research Service tragedy
• The tragic destruction of the Economic Research Service, Continued
• USDA’s destruction of the Economic Research Service: A National Tragedy

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

USDA announced the members of the new 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee last week.

It also set up the places where you can:

• Provide public comments.
• Attend virtual Committee meetings.
• Sign up for regular updates to stay informed on each step of the process.
• Visit DietaryGuidelines.gov to stay updated.

Why my “oh no not again?”

I was on the Advisory Committee for the 1995 Guidelines, have followed them closely since 1980, and have written about them repeatedly in Food Politics but also more recently on this site.

• Reason #1.  They don’t change enough from one edition to another to have to go through all this fuss.  The 1980 Guidelines said eat more vegetables and fruit; balance calories; and eat less saturated fat, salt, and sugar.  As did the current Guidelines.  Want to make a bet?  The new ones will too.
• Reason #2:  The committee no longer gets to do much.  When I was on the committee, we chose the research questions, reviewed the research on them, and wrote the Dietary Guidelines.  We did it all.  This committee will only review the research.  The agencies have already chosen the research questions (as I explained previously).  The agencies will write the guidelines.
• Reason #3: The Dietary Guidelines get longer, more complicated, and more obfuscating every year.  The original ones came as a 24-page small pamphlet.  They’ve been expanding ever since.  The most recent is 149 pages online.
• Reason #4: What they say has to be a result of political compromise.  The last time USDA was in charge, Congress instructed the Secretary not to allow any discussion of diet and sustainability.  As if it didn’t matter.

Well, here we go again.  Let’s wish the committee the best of success.  Here’s its chance to say something about ultraprocessed foods (not mentioned in the current version), clarify the meat situation, insist on taking environmental issues and sustainability into consideration, and giving clear, unambiguous advice about diet and health.  Enjoy!

More Dietary Guidelines resources:

• The history of the Dietary Guidelines is here.
• Previous Editions of the Dietary Guidelines are here.
• How they are developed is here.
• Online historical documents related to the Guidelines are here.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

So many people send me these things that I can hardly keep up.  Let’s take a look at two this time.  Thanks to Hugh Joseph and Matthew Kirby for these:

I.  The impact of almonds and almond processing on gastrointestinal physiology, luminal microbiology, and gastrointestinal symptoms: a randomized controlled trial and mastication study   Alice C Creedon, Eirini Dimidi, Estella S Hung, Megan Rossi, Christopher Probert, Terri Grassby, Jesus Miguens-Blanco, Julian R Marchesi, S Mark Scott, Sarah E Berry, Kevin Whelan.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 116, Issue 6, December 2022, Pages 1790–1804, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac265

• Conclusions: “Almond consumption has limited impact on microbiota composition but increases butyrate in adults, suggesting positive alterations to microbiota functionality. Almonds can be incorporated into the diet to increase fiber consumption without gut symptoms.”
• Funding: Supported by an Almond Board of California grant (to KW). The funders provided financial support, and the whole and ground almonds consumed by participants in the trial, but had no role in study design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, or decision to publish.
• Author disclosures: ACC was funded by a PhD studentship funded by Almond Board of California. ED has received an education grant from Alpro, research funding from the British Dietetic Association, Almond Board of California, the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council, and Nestec Ltd, and has served as a consultant for Puratos. MR and KW have received research funding from Almond Board of California, Danone, and International Dried Fruit and Nut Council, and are co-inventors of volatile organic compounds in the diagnosis and dietary management of irritable bowel syndrome. MR is also cofounder of Bio&Me, a gut health food brand. TG supervises PhD students partially funded by Mondelez and McCain Foods Ltd, and has previously received research funding from Almond Board of California. SEB has received grant funding from Almond Board of California, Malaysian Palm Oil Board, and ZOE Ltd, and receives consultancy and options from ZOE Ltd. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
• Comment: The Almond Board is doing its job, apparently.

II. Almond intake alters the acute plasma dihydroxy-octadecenoic acid (DiHOME) response to eccentric exercise.   David C. Nieman^1*,  Ashraf M. Omar²,  Colin D. Kay³,  Deepak M. Kasote³,  Camila A. Sakaguchi¹,  Ankhbayar Lkhagva²,  Mehari Muuz Weldemariam² and  Qibin Zhang. Front. Nutr., 09 January 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1042719

• Conclusions: “These data support some positive effects of almond intake in improving mood state, retaining strength, decreasing muscle damage, increasing the generation of gut-derived phenolic metabolites, and altering the plasma oxylipin DiHOME response to unaccustomed eccentric exercise in untrained adults. The elevated post-exercise plasma levels of 12,13-DiHOME with almond intake support positive metabolic outcomes for adults engaging in unaccustomed eccentric exercise bouts.”
• Funding: “This work was supported by Almond Board of California, Modesto, CA. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, the preparation of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.”
• Conflict of Interest: “The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”
• Comment:  I disagree.  The fact that the Almond Board funded the study if nothing else gives the appearance of conflicted interests, especially because studies so clearly document the influence of funding whether recognized by recipients or not.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.